Claudia Anzini Annotation 1 2/19/14 Blind Spot Word Count: 1,317
1. Title, director, and release year?
Blind Spot. Directed by Adolfo Doring. Released 2008.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film Blind Spot focuses on the current oil crisis and where we are now. It discusses peak oil and the negative effects it has had on the environment, energy use, and the economy. This film brings to our attention that United States as a whole has a big decision to make in moving forward with this oil crisis; ignore it and potentially destroy the environment while using up the last of the oil or stop using oil and potentially collapse the economy.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The main narrative of this film is told through interviews. By interviewing scientists, professors, lawyers, engineers, and even activists, Blind Spot gets at the dark truth of the oil crisis that the US is facing. While not all facts given by those who were interviewed were scientifically based, most of the opinions were. It became apparently obvious throughout the film though that the goal was to go for the emotional appeal and not a fact based argument. Derrick Jensen, an activist, made comparisons between the gas chambers in concentration camps and abusive relationships as a way to explain why people are choosing to ignore this crisis. These stories use viewer’s emotions and fears to help them understand that just buying an energy saving light bulb won’t fix anything, even though in the moment we will convince ourselves that it does. Instead of dancing around the problems, these opinions are direct and not watered down with the intention of getting people’s attention and convincing them to make a change.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out; political, legal, economic, technological, media and informational,organizational, educational, behavioral, cultural, or ecological?
This film mainly focused on economic and ecological problems, but lightly touched on others. The central argument was that using oil is bad for the environment, whether it be in how we get the oil or how the oil is eventually used. It was also argued that because the United States is so dependent upon using oil, it directly impacts our economy and ceasing to use it would lead to a collapse. Other problems the film touches on are the media and informational issues associated with the oil crisis as well as the behavioral, cultural, and technological concerns. The media has been played a huge role in contributing to the consumption of oil. Whether it is advertising for new cars or a new toy, oil is used in most of these products that consumers generally don’t need, but feel compelled to purchase after seeing advertisements for them. This problem is one of many that contribute to the culture the US fosters. Consumers are made to feel that it is acceptable to over-consume, which leads to over-consumption of food and fuel. Technological advances also aid in over-consumption. If you have a car that is more fuel efficient, then you will feel it is acceptable to drive more. All of these things contribute to the use of oil and not just one thing needs to be fixed to solve the oil crisis at hand.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I did not really find anything from this film to be persuasive or compelling. The purpose of this film was to educate about the oil crisis and compel viewers to change their habits or go to their government and ask for change. After viewing this film, I was left confused as to whether or not that was even the right thing to do.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
Overall, this film left me confused and questioning the original purpose of the film. The central argument that the film created was the consumption of oil is leading to environmental problems and will eventually lead to the Earth’s demise. This was overshadowed by the other argument posed, which was if the US stops consuming oil, it will lead to an economic collapse that could potentially affect the global economy. So the film made two arguments that conflicted with each other and the main point of the film. As a viewer, I feel that only raising these two concerns and not offering any other possible solutions made the film less credible than it probably was. The ending scene with the dead bird also took away from the films message. I felt like it was put there as one last push to touch the viewers on an emotional level, but to me it distracted from any of the arguments that were made during the film.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film best targets the average American who has some concern for the environment. Since the film was not entirely fact based, the message was a bit lost on us, who are highly educated students with a background in sustainability. The film was entirely about the United States problems with oil consumption, so audiences outside of the US would also find little use in the film. If the film offered more facts and fewer opinions, along with more solutions than additional problems, the film would have a wider target audience.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
As an introduction to the oil crisis in America, this film does a pretty good job. As an educational tool, it misses the mark a bit. The film would benefit from having more solutions to all the problems it poses. Having these solutions would make both arguments made about oil and the economy more credible and compel people to make real changes in their life. If this film were to be used as an educational tool, it would also need to not target people emotions. By giving solution paths, viewers would not need to be compelled by the despair they feel after viewing this film.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film itself did not suggest any solutions of value. It suggested that we could ignore the problem or we could pull the plug on oil use completely. It also suggested many reasons that we shouldn't do either of these things. The film should have suggested an intermediate solution, slowly phasing out oil use in favor of other fuel sources or bio-sources for products that require oil. By slowing phasing out oil, you would build up new markets to help support the US economy, along with other economies that are dependent upon the United States consumption of oil. This phase out would also allow for new technologies to emerge that would have less of an impact on the environment.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.) One of the points that was touched on in the film was ethanol as an alternative fuel source. This is a problem because it requires corn as a feedstock to make, which cuts into the United States’ food supply. After looking into what fuel sources are out there, I discovered that there are many other alternatives that don’t require feedstock from resources we are using. Some of those fuel sources include biodiesel made from recycled cooking grease, electricity, hydrogen, which could be emissions-free, natural gas, and propane. While not all of these fuels are the perfect solution or ready to replace oil based fuels, technology will be developed and one or more of these will become commonplace in the years to come.
"EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page." EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. <http://www.afdc.energy.gov/>.
Annotation 1
2/19/14
Blind Spot
Word Count: 1,317
1. Title, director, and release year?
Blind Spot. Directed by Adolfo Doring. Released 2008.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film Blind Spot focuses on the current oil crisis and where we are now. It discusses peak oil and the negative effects it has had on the environment, energy use, and the economy. This film brings to our attention that United States as a whole has a big decision to make in moving forward with this oil crisis; ignore it and potentially destroy the environment while using up the last of the oil or stop using oil and potentially collapse the economy.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The main narrative of this film is told through interviews. By interviewing scientists, professors, lawyers, engineers, and even activists, Blind Spot gets at the dark truth of the oil crisis that the US is facing. While not all facts given by those who were interviewed were scientifically based, most of the opinions were. It became apparently obvious throughout the film though that the goal was to go for the emotional appeal and not a fact based argument. Derrick Jensen, an activist, made comparisons between the gas chambers in concentration camps and abusive relationships as a way to explain why people are choosing to ignore this crisis. These stories use viewer’s emotions and fears to help them understand that just buying an energy saving light bulb won’t fix anything, even though in the moment we will convince ourselves that it does. Instead of dancing around the problems, these opinions are direct and not watered down with the intention of getting people’s attention and convincing them to make a change.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out; political, legal, economic, technological, media and informational,organizational, educational, behavioral, cultural, or ecological?
This film mainly focused on economic and ecological problems, but lightly touched on others. The central argument was that using oil is bad for the environment, whether it be in how we get the oil or how the oil is eventually used. It was also argued that because the United States is so dependent upon using oil, it directly impacts our economy and ceasing to use it would lead to a collapse. Other problems the film touches on are the media and informational issues associated with the oil crisis as well as the behavioral, cultural, and technological concerns. The media has been played a huge role in contributing to the consumption of oil. Whether it is advertising for new cars or a new toy, oil is used in most of these products that consumers generally don’t need, but feel compelled to purchase after seeing advertisements for them. This problem is one of many that contribute to the culture the US fosters. Consumers are made to feel that it is acceptable to over-consume, which leads to over-consumption of food and fuel. Technological advances also aid in over-consumption. If you have a car that is more fuel efficient, then you will feel it is acceptable to drive more. All of these things contribute to the use of oil and not just one thing needs to be fixed to solve the oil crisis at hand.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I did not really find anything from this film to be persuasive or compelling. The purpose of this film was to educate about the oil crisis and compel viewers to change their habits or go to their government and ask for change. After viewing this film, I was left confused as to whether or not that was even the right thing to do.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
Overall, this film left me confused and questioning the original purpose of the film. The central argument that the film created was the consumption of oil is leading to environmental problems and will eventually lead to the Earth’s demise. This was overshadowed by the other argument posed, which was if the US stops consuming oil, it will lead to an economic collapse that could potentially affect the global economy. So the film made two arguments that conflicted with each other and the main point of the film. As a viewer, I feel that only raising these two concerns and not offering any other possible solutions made the film less credible than it probably was. The ending scene with the dead bird also took away from the films message. I felt like it was put there as one last push to touch the viewers on an emotional level, but to me it distracted from any of the arguments that were made during the film.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film best targets the average American who has some concern for the environment. Since the film was not entirely fact based, the message was a bit lost on us, who are highly educated students with a background in sustainability. The film was entirely about the United States problems with oil consumption, so audiences outside of the US would also find little use in the film. If the film offered more facts and fewer opinions, along with more solutions than additional problems, the film would have a wider target audience.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
As an introduction to the oil crisis in America, this film does a pretty good job. As an educational tool, it misses the mark a bit. The film would benefit from having more solutions to all the problems it poses. Having these solutions would make both arguments made about oil and the economy more credible and compel people to make real changes in their life. If this film were to be used as an educational tool, it would also need to not target people emotions. By giving solution paths, viewers would not need to be compelled by the despair they feel after viewing this film.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film itself did not suggest any solutions of value. It suggested that we could ignore the problem or we could pull the plug on oil use completely. It also suggested many reasons that we shouldn't do either of these things. The film should have suggested an intermediate solution, slowly phasing out oil use in favor of other fuel sources or bio-sources for products that require oil. By slowing phasing out oil, you would build up new markets to help support the US economy, along with other economies that are dependent upon the United States consumption of oil. This phase out would also allow for new technologies to emerge that would have less of an impact on the environment.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
One of the points that was touched on in the film was ethanol as an alternative fuel source. This is a problem because it requires corn as a feedstock to make, which cuts into the United States’ food supply. After looking into what fuel sources are out there, I discovered that there are many other alternatives that don’t require feedstock from resources we are using. Some of those fuel sources include biodiesel made from recycled cooking grease, electricity, hydrogen, which could be emissions-free, natural gas, and propane. While not all of these fuels are the perfect solution or ready to replace oil based fuels, technology will be developed and one or more of these will become commonplace in the years to come.
Citations
"Alternative Fuel Vehicles." Alternative Fuel Vehicles. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. <http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/current.shtml>.
"EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page." EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. <http://www.afdc.energy.gov/>.